The Goose Has Landed!

[snoopy369]

I think it's mostly the male sportswriters here...

[Ben Kenobi]

The man almost hit .300 with 400 hrs?

I don't know many folks who hit for power with average.

How many others did that?

[Ben Kenobi]

Barry Bonds
Hank Aaron
Babe Ruth
Willie Mays
Mickey Mantle
Jimmie Foxx
Ted Williams
Alex Rodriguez
Frank Thomas
Mel Ott

Pretty good company to me.

[Ben Kenobi]

Seems like you are cherry picking stats, Imran.

Lynn only hit 300 hrs and .283 Fine numbers but not HOF material.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Seems like you are cherry picking stats, Imran.

Lynn only hit 300 hrs and .287 Fine numbers but not HOF material.

Yes, I'm cherry picking OPS+, the stat that takes into account On Base Percentage and Slugging Percentage and takes into account park and era factors. Ie, it is the closest thing we have to an all encompasing statistic for batting performance.

Says the man who picks HRs and batting average (which is one of the worst evaluative stats to use... getting on base is far more important than simply seeing how often you get hits per at bat).

In the most important rate stat in baseball, On Base Percentage, Lynn beats Rice .360 to .352. In Slugging, Rice beats Lynn .502 to .484. Of course we have to adjust for the fact that Rice played in a hitters' ballpark his entire career (Fenway), while Lynn had to play a few years in California and Baltimore, far more neutral parks. They both also had 1 MVP each (though Lynn was screwed out of one in 1979).

Hell, Dwight Evans has 385 HRs and a .370 career OBP (both better than Rice).

So, try again.

[Ben Kenobi]

Barry Bonds
Hank Aaron
Babe Ruth
Willie Mays
Mickey Mantle
Jimmie Foxx
Ted Williams
Alex Rodriguez
Frank Thomas
Mel Ott
Lou Gehrig
Stan Musial
Manny Ramirez

That's your list, and it includes three active players, A-Rod, Thomas and Ramirez.

Pretty damn good company if you ask me.

Ie, it is the closest thing we have to an all encompasing statistic for batting performance.

You selling books Imran? I'd love to buy one.

Stats are stats. You are telling me that it's common to have that combination of power, and batting average.

No, it's not. It's very, very rare.

I just showed you every fellow above him is a first ballot HOF. That's the list.

There aren't any others.

14 names, even with three currently active players.

[snoopy369]

Frank Thomas is not a first ballot HOF, i'm sad to say He may well make the HOF (and should), but it won't be on the first ballot.

I tend to doubt Manny will be first ballot as well. Barry, who knows ... could be first ballot, could pull a mcgwire and never make it if the writers decide to hate him enough. It only takes 26%, right?

[Ben Kenobi]

Hell, Dwight Evans has 385 HRs and a .370 career OBP (both better than Rice).

And a .272 batting average.



Really objective here Imran.

I ain't a Sox fan, I couldn't care less about them.

But Rice's numbers stand out.

Maybe to you it's more important to get on base, but honestly, what's better? Getting on base four out of every 10 trips or getting a hit one out of every three?

The big stat isn't the HRs, it's the batting average, so I'm surprised that you say it's all about the long ball.

[snoopy369]

Why should BA be more important than OBP? OBP means how often did you get on base, while BA just describes some of the ways of getting on base.

Either you want to count 'getting on base' and count OBP, or you want to count 'bases' and count Slugging, or you want to count 'runs batted in' and you count RBIs. I don't see how BA could give you any information any of the others don't; it's just the 'traditional' stat so it's what is used commonly.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why should BA be more important than OBP? OBP means how often did you get on base, while BA just describes some of the ways of getting on base.

Historically, batting average has been by far the more important stat. I think it's important to consider what the players themselves would consider important when assessing things like 'feared slugger'. That Rice drops so much in recent times is a question of the statistical measure, not of Rice. Like it or not, his reputation was feared, and rightfully so, even if he isn't the best at sabermetrics.

That's the problem with statistics, the more you bundle together, the harder it is to both understand, and the less likely it is to be accurate.

Either you want to count 'getting on base' and count OBP, or you want to count 'bases' and count Slugging, or you want to count 'runs batted in' and you count RBIs. I don't see how BA could give you any information any of the others don't; it's just the 'traditional' stat so it's what is used commonly.

Well that's the question here. You bundle things together sometimes you overlook things. Right now, a man with low BA and high OBP, we know he walks alot.

The question isn't his SLG, but it's that OBP. By bundling them all together we miss the important stuff.

Rice was pretty unique. Looking at that list, there isn't anyone between Mays and Thomas.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Barry Bonds
Hank Aaron
Babe Ruth
Willie Mays
Mickey Mantle
Jimmie Foxx
Ted Williams
Alex Rodriguez
Frank Thomas
Mel Ott
Lou Gehrig
Stan Musial
Manny Ramirez

That's your list, and it includes three active players, A-Rod, Thomas and Ramirez.

Based on Batting Average (a crap stat) and Home Runs, which of course is not as good as SLG (doubles and triples are nice as well)

You selling books Imran? I'd love to buy one.

Wow... so a statistic that encompassing getting on base and your total bases per at bat, adjusted for park and era effects do nothing for you?! It's not be all, end all, but to not even treat it as important is stunning.

Apparently the sabermetric revolution passed you by and didn't even pause.

Maybe to you it's more important to get on base

No, it's just simply more important. Statistical analysis has shown that OBP is the rate stat (ie, the ones that have %s) that most correlates to scoring runs.

And a .272 batting average.

And?

He gets on base far more than Rice did. Rice slugged better, so his OPS+ is 1 more than Evans, but having a slightly better batting average means nothing if the other guy walks a ton more than you.

You are in need of some reading material:

http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/baseball_beat/

There is an interesting back and forth on Rice there between Rich Lederer and Buster Olney, starting from January 14th onwards. I think Lederer runs circles around Olney, personally.

I'd also like to ask you to purchase these books to open your eyes:

The Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract
Baseball Between the Numbers by the Baseball Prospectus Guys

Just as a starting point.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Historically, batting average has been by far the more important stat.

Because people didn't know better. I think rewarding ignorance isn't something we should perpetuate. Walks were decidedly undervalued.

Like it or not, his reputation was feared, and rightfully so, even if he isn't the best at sabermetrics.

As linked by Rich Lederer in the link I've posted above, what Bill James said in the 1985 Baseball Abstract:

[q=Bill James]Virtually all sportswriters, I suppose, believe that Jim Rice is an outstanding player. If you ask them how they know this, they'll tell you that they just know; I've seen him play. That's the difference in a nutshell between knowledge and bull****; knowledge is something that can be objectively demonstrated to be true, and bull**** is something that you just "know." If someone can actually demonstrate that Jim Rice is a great ballplayer, I'd be most interested to see the evidence.[/q]

That's the problem with statistics, the more you bundle together, the harder it is to both understand, and the less likely it is to be accurate.

Only if your preconceived notions get in the way (on the accuracy part, not the you having difficulty understanding part - there are scores of 'bundled' stats which are incredibly accurate).

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'll use a more complex stat (I can hear Ben moaning now ), Win Shares, developed by Bill James, which tries to take everything into account, hitting, fielding, pitching, etc.

It doesn't do fielding that great, but then no metric has. It's probably best in hitting. Basically it takes the wins won by the team and divides them up by player based on what they did hitting (which includes baserunning), fielding, or pitching wise.

Anyway, Jim Rice had 282 career WS. Fred Lynn had 280. Though for Rice 87% of his career WS were based on hitting, while Lynn had 81% of his career WS on hitting. The rest, of course, is fielding. Btw, the aforementioned Dwight Evans? 347 career WS, 85% batting.

Oh, more reading:

Win Shares by Bill James

And I assume you know about 'Moneyball' by Michael Lewis, right?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Frank Thomas is not a first ballot HOF, i'm sad to say He may well make the HOF (and should), but it won't be on the first ballot.

I tend to doubt Manny will be first ballot as well. Barry, who knows ... could be first ballot, could pull a mcgwire and never make it if the writers decide to hate him enough. It only takes 26%, right?

Missed this. Frank Thomas is without a doubt a first ballot Hall of Famer. No question in my mind. Manny will be 1st ballot too. It doesn't mean anything in this discussion because it isn't because of their batting averages (though HRs are fairly important).

[SlowwHand]

Babe Ruth is not particularly remembered as a singles and doubles hitter, but he is remembered as the greatest batter in baseball history; Aaron and McGwire and Sosa and whomever, included.
I just wanted to throw that out there.